Yeah, I agree Surprisingly Improved Sequel works a lot better. Thor: The Dark World is considered by many to be the one of the weakest films in the MCU (even if it was considered So Okay, It's Average overall), and most fans and critics agree that Ragnarok was a huge improvement for the Thor films.
I also agree that Suprisingly Improved Sequel is the better fit. Even Better Sequel implies that the original film was outstanding and against the odds, the sequel is even better which is clearly not the case with Dark World and even the original Thor while good wasn't outstanding.
Fourthing that Surprisingly Improved Sequel is a better fit, especially since I believe Feige outright admitted that the Thor franchise was lagging and in need of a fresh new take to correct the course.
Going to go ahead and move it, then.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
"Thor's gouged eye wound is clearly makeup with Chris Hemsworth closing his eye. This is totally fine until his close-up when he's watching Surtur destroy Asgard, when it's plainly visible that his eye is just closed. Likely intentional, as Infinity War shows Thor acquiring a prosthetic eye, so at least his eyelids weren't so damaged that they couldn't heal."
This is listed under Special Effect Failure, would you agree that this can be cut, because it's explained in the same example that his eyelids being visible is justified?
Hide / Show Replies
I would agree that it should be removed. If the example text argues effectively against itself then it's not a strong and clear representation of the trope.
- What An Idiot: Surtur's crown, which will cause Ragnarok if it's placed in the Eternal Flame, is stored in Odin's trophy room, where the Eternal Flame is also stored. This turns out to be mighty convenient when Surtur ends up being needed to counteract Hela at the climax.
Is this really an example? As things played out, just being in the same room did not seem to cause any problem: the flame is self-contained and does not reach to the crown, it took someone to actually grab the crowm and throw it to the fire to start things.
Also, the usual format is "some background / you'd expect that someone does some reasonable thing / Instead he does something else, and causes a lot of harm". That something happened that might have caused a lot of harm but ultimately didn't, is probably a fridge horror instead.
Ultimate Secret Wars Hide / Show Replies
I agree. The vault seems to be well protected so that no stranger will break in and you have to actually say the words "With the eternal flame you shall be reborn" (or something similar) to bring Surtur to life again; so just putting it in the same room really doesn't seem to be dangerous.
Edited by Hjortron18
Okay, necroing, but I have to disagree. It's unclear whether the incantation is necessary or not (especially since Surtr's plan doesn't involve dying so the "reborn" bit is odd), and Odin's trophy room is hardly impregnable. In three movies, it's been breached by those who seek to abuse it at least twice (to be frank, I can't remember Dark World). Not to mention they're concerned enough about artifacts interacting that the give the Aether away rather than store it.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Bump. Also pointing out that Surtur says nothing about the incantation being required, just "when my crown is reunited with the Eternal Flame" which seems straightforward enough.
If the vault is well-protected enough that there's no issue, then you would think that it would be safer to keep one there and keep the other elsewhere. You only need to keep one guarded, after all. Proposed writeup:
- Surtur outright tells Thor that if his crown is united with the Eternal Flame, he will reach full power and cause Ragnarok. Fortunately, Thor defeats Surtur (though Surtur does tell Thor he cannot die, and was supposedly killed before by Odin). Thor take's Surtur's crown for safe keeping.
EDIT: Don't know why it's not letting me do line breaks. Ah well, you get the point.
Edited by Larkmarn Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Bump. Going to add it if no one objects.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
Pulled this for discussion:
- What Do You Mean, It's Not Political?: Whether or not you agree with the idea, it's hard not to see Thor's words to Valkyrie (during the scene in which he's talking to her from his prison) as anything but pro-feminist philosophy.
This is presumably referring to the "I'm all for an elite group of warrior women" scene? In other words, the scene where the entire joke is that Thor is applying feminist theory to coax help from someone? In which case it isn't "what do you mean it isn't political" so much as "how dare there be a hint of feminism, even in jest"?
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
I never really agreed with the example as being any type of political statement. When I watch the scene, I see Thor wanting to try and win favor with scrapper142 because he learns she's an Asgardian, then he notices her Valkyrie tattoo and does an involuntary fan boy gush (since he says he always wanted to be a Valkyrie) which he then awkwardly tries to cover up with his whole "elite force of women warriors" ramble.
Given that ''Thor:Ragnarok ' is essentially a comedy and Taika Waititi has reported on how much of the dialog was improvised, I'm more inclined to see this as an improvisation that wobbled awkwardly rather than an intentional pro-feminist statement.
Edited by rva98014
It's not supposed to be political at all, it's a humorous bit of worldbuilding and establishing Thor being oafish but well-meaning and fairminded. And honestly if women being competent warriors is somehow a bold political statement in a franchise which has already shown multiple cases of them, that says more about the troper than the film.
Hilarious in Hindsight and Spiritual Adaptation both say that the film is a more faithful adaptation of the Defenders than the Netflix TV series, as it includes Dr. Strange, Hulk and Valkyrie, while the TV series used characters that were hardly or never part of the team in comic books. But is that an accurate view, or just wishful thinking? Dr. Strange does never interact with Hulk or Valkyrie, they are in a team with Thor and Loki (who have never been in that team), and in fact when they tried to come up with a name, they did not even consider it. So the "defenders" thing here is just Hulk and Valkyrie. Is that enough to even consider it an adaptation?
Ultimate Secret Wars Hide / Show Replies
In The Defenders, the original comic, it wasn't a case that all the Defenders fought alongside each other all the time. So yeah it fits...It's certainly more accurate to the comic than the Netflix series. Furthermore, the idea of the Defenders was to bring together characters who didn't quite fit a team. So that applies to Thor Ragnarok too.
Should Even Better Sequel be changed to Surprisingly Improved Sequel? Ragnarok comes after the two Thor movies that are basically considered the nadir of the MCU, and absolutely no one was expecting a Thor movie to be arguably the best Phase III movie.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them. Hide / Show Replies